Speaking in tongues

I asked if he felt anything while I prayed for him. He reported a tremendous heat on his back where I was laying my hands.
His pain had gone from a 10 to an 8, so we pressed in until it went to 5 and then 3 and then 0.
Afterwards he was walking around the sanctuary waving the cane over his head praising God.
The next Sunday he testified before the church that he had been healed and that I had prayed for him.
This has not happened to me since. I thought God was showing me that I had a healing ministry. Not so.

but there is absolutely no doubt that Abraham was born in about 2300 BC, of this fact there is not the slightest doubt.

Lol. Nope. All I want is to see is legitimate medical testimony and unequivocal video footage. Piece of cake, done deal, all of the contention and arguments DISAPPEAR.

You must understand that at many of Jesus miraculous healings the beneficiaries were to go to the priest to be confirmed correct? As a witness to them.....and everyone else of a confirmed miracle duly recorded by the authorities.

Except, Moses was buried by God and angels.
Guess again.

What I am looking for is an example of a member of you church who only knows English manifesting a miraculous language such as Mandarin Chinese or Arabic or Hindustani or Spanish.....something known. Even an ancient language.

Do you realize what you said does not refute what I said?

It doesn't say 'his people buried him', either. The people did mourn Moses. They could have had his body a while before God buried him, for all we know. 'Gathered to his people' could be an idiom related to mourning, death, or burial customs--and it would be quite an odd phrase otherwise.

No, it does not follow. That does not make sense. Linguistically, grammatically, textually, it does not follow that 'caught up' to meet the Lord in the air means for the dead to indwell the living.

You might as well say it means to play golf on the moon.

Do you mean Thessalonika? Anyway, each generation of Israelites was to think and speak about the Exodus as if they themselves were brought out of the land of Egypt. Paul was alive at the time, and wrote 'we which are alive and remain.' You are being very hyper-literal here-- and throwing out a major doctrine, the resurrection of the body, in the process.

God let me know it was false.

That's great! Praise God!

There was one preacher who would tell testimonies about healing and say stuff like, "I did not feel any heat on my hands. I just prayed and believed and she was healed".

I'll tell a testimony. I prayed for a woman who had shoulder pain. While I was praying for her, I did not feel any heat, oil, or electricity. But she said the pain was gone and it was good after I prayed with her-- praise God.

Sometimes people do feel things like that, which is fine. But if you don't, that's fine too. Don't let it hinder your faith. As one preacher said, it's not what you feel. It's what you believe.

What you said is nothing and is not supported by anything. A wild guess, no basis at all and now you want to argue about it.

You are 'arguing, too.

At least what I wrote us not bizaar and unreasonable- that Moses' and Aaron had different 'peopke' and that this is supposed to be evidence for the ghost of dead saints being distributed among. The living.

Please pardon me...my mistake.

All of my video upload requests are directed to "Sketch".

Hahahah sorry my bad. You and I hold the same views on tongues.

I just had a glance at it and once of his arguments there is obviously wrong, which we can see from context. He says that he that speaks in tongues edifies himself means it 'puffs your ego.'

But look at Paul's argument in I Corinthians 14.

3 But he that prophesieth speaketh unto men to edification, and exhortation, and comfort.
4 He that speaketh in an unknown tongue edifieth himself; but he that prophesieth edifieth the church.

John MacArthur, at least back in the early 1990's, would have had us believe that 'edify' in verse 3 is good, but edify in verse 4 is bad? Why the definition change between verses?

5 I would that ye all spake with tongues but rather that ye prophesied: for greater is he that prophesieth than he that speaketh with tongues, except he interpret, that the church may receive edifying.

Consider the argument, "He that speaks in a tongue edifies himself...I want you all to speak with tongues." If speaking in tongues puffs up the ego, why would Paul want them to do it? In verse 5 speaking in tongues, even without an interpreter is a good thing. We know this because Paul wanted them to speak with tongues. But prophesying is better.

Edifying self--> Good.
Edifying church--> Better.

The one who prophesies and edifies the church is greater than the one who speaks in tongues (without interpretation) and edifies himself. Compare with what Jesus said that He who is the greatest among you shall be the servant of all.

Anyway, MacArthur's assertions do not line up with the text. Basically, he wants to redefine 'edify' between verses 3 and 4, and we are supposed to believe it, I suppose, because he says so. And then the next verse does not make sense if you follow his argument.

His Liberal Oracle of Delphi Interpretation
These days, John MacArthur is known for verse-by-verse teaching. But here, he does not do that. His interpretation does not hold up if you actually go verse by verse through the text. What he's doing is parroting the ideas of 19th century liberals about speaking in tongues. His argument only makes sense if you do not believe the scripture is authoritative and you believe that Paul missed it. Some of the liberals thought the Corinthians were engaging in pagan babble. But if we look at Paul's writings, he treats I Corinthians 14 tongues as a genuine gift. He says their tongues were a 'fabrication coming from their pagan background' and a counterfeit.

Now, if you don't really believe the text of the passage is inspired, you might think Paul was just wrong, and that the Corinthians were engaging in some nonsense pagan babbling. But you can't approach the text sensibly and go verse by verse with a coherent interpetation and believe that if you have a high view of scripture. I think MacArthur was reading some bad commentaries and parroting what he'd read.

Using the Oracle of Delphi as an exegetical key makes no sense either. They were a bit of a distance from Delphi. And what evidence is there for the Oracle of Delphi speaking in some kind of magical babble? There were myths about some people not being able to understand what the prophecy meant, but where is the evidence for it being some sort of incomprehensibl language? Plutarch was a first century author, and he was actually a priest at Delphi. He actually addressed the issue that many people expected a prophecy in high poetry at Delphi. He defended the idea that the oracle could give a prophecy in regular prose. So it is clear they were speaking comprehensible words at Delphi, even if the prophecies they gave were inegmatic.

The really sad thing here is this man is so anti-speaking in tongues, that he has actually attacked the speaking in tongues in the actual pages of scripture itself.

This forum is an interesting place.
God is disagreeing with himself constantly.
I wonder what it means.

No God doesn't disagree with himself. How dare you say such things about the Lord. You sound like you are using his name sarcastically with no love in your words.

You and I have said everything with each other we need to say. Overtime the Lord may convince you of truth as he has me himself. Please, don't use the Lord's name with such useless meaning. That's called "taking his name in vain."

So are you saying you could recognize Mandarin, Arabic, or Hindustani? I think most people in the US have a decent chance of recognizing Spanish if they studied it in high school.

Which of these is an language typed with 'the understanding' and which is not?

Arrajalul fiylmadinati wa huna muminuna.
Kenapakau begitusayang ku.
Giginya gigi digigit gigi orang.
Kukukaki kakeku kenapakukenapa si
oyay onay ethopway ablaray

You wouldn't believe it even if you spoke in tongues yourself.
Don't you have any Pentecostal or Charismatic churches where you live?

No God doesn't disagree with himself. How dare you say such things about the Lord. You sound like you are using his name sarcastically with no love in your words.

You and I have said everything with each other we need to say. Overtime the Lord may convince you of truth as he has me himself. Please, don't use the Lord's name with such useless meaning. That's called "taking his name in vain."

Where do you get the idea that I think of anything about 5 languages? I've never said anything about how many languages there are for anything. The only thing I've said about language is that the Pentecostal view of unknown tongues is false. I never said anything else about languages or how many I believe there are. Have you confused me with someone else?